[2025:RJ-JP:26899] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 439/2010 United India Insurance Company Limited, through Regional Manager, Jaipur. ----Non-claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Smt Bachi W/o Late Amba Lal, aged 60 years, 2. Ramkaran, aged 37 years, 3. Ramavtar, aged 34 years, 4. Ramesh, aged 29 years SI. No.2, 3 & 4 S/o late Amba Lal, resident of Kaririya P.S. Baroni, District Tonk. ----Claimants/Respondents 5. Rajesh Singh S/o Chhitar Singh, resident of Bansathli, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk, Driver & Owner. ----Non-claimant/Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gajraj Singh Rajawat for Mr. G.S. Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain Mr. S.S. Mehla HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 18/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the non- claimant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Company") under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 10.11.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk in case No.303/2008, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents was partly allowed and a compensation of Rs.1,86,145/- was awarded in favour of the claimants/respondents along with interest @ 7% per annum. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 24.03.2008, the deceased- Amba Lal, Ram Narayan and claimant No.2- Ramkaran were going to Banasthali from Kariria on a motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-26-3M-2675 for medical [2025:RJ-JP:26899] (2 of 3) [CMA-439/2010] treatment and thereafter, another motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-26-3M-1981 which was driven by non-claimant/respondent No.5 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle RJ-26-3M-2675 as a result of which Amba Lal and Ram Narayan and claimant No.2- Ramkaran sustained injuries. Due to the said accident, Amba Lal died on 15.04.2009 during treatment in Niwai Hospital, therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition for awarding just compensation. 3. After receiving notice of the claim petition, non- claimant/respondent No.5 filed reply to the claim petition and stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the motorcycle No. RJ-26-3M-2675 and also stated that there is no negligence on the part of the non-claimant/respondent No.5. Additionally, it was submitted that since the motorcycle is insured with the Insurance Company and in such case the liability should be fasten upon the Insurance Company, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The non-claimant/appellant- Insurance Company also filed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made in the claim petition stating that the owner of the motorcycle No. RJ-26- 3M-2675 and the Insurance Company are necessary parties and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition for want of necessary parties. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed four (4) issues. 6. In order to substantiate the averments, the claimants examined AW-1 Smt. Bachi and AW-2 Ramkaran and produced Ex.1 to Ex.47 as documentary evidences. [2025:RJ-JP:26899] (3 of 3) [CMA-439/2010] 7. In rebuttal, non-claimants despite granting opportunity, did not led any evidence. 8. Therefore, the learned Tribunal while deciding issue Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the claimants awarded a compensation of Rs.1,86,145/- along with interest @ 7% per annum. 9. Being aggrieved of which, the non-claimant/appellant has preferred this present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation in favour of the claimants, therefore, the impugned award may be set aside. 11. From bare perusal of the impugned award, it is revealed that the evidence of the claimants remained uncontroverted in the present case and while considering the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- on the basis of minimum wages, deduction of 1/3 and while applying the multiplier of 5, looking to the age of the deceased- Amba Lal to be 65 years, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,86,145/- which cannot be said to the excessive or on higher side. 12. A bare perusal of the impugned award reveals that the impugned award does not suffers from any legal infirmity or legal perversity so as to attract interference by this Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction of this Court. 13. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. 14. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-20